Stamets to [email protected] • 6 months agoLiterally no one knowslemmy.worldimagemessage-square148fedilinkarrow-up1937arrow-down116
arrow-up1921arrow-down1imageLiterally no one knowslemmy.worldStamets to [email protected] • 6 months agomessage-square148fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink9•6 months agoThese numbers all come from people who preferred 12 and 60 as their working base numbers, not 10. A lot of it becomes really elegant once you understand that.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•edit-26 months agoDid they use duodecimal or sexagesimal numeral systems? 66 feet does not match that, also its 1 chain * 10 chains.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-1•6 months agoYa if you know that, you know what I’m talking about and just want to argue.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink4•edit-26 months agoI do think a duodecimal system is elegant, I don’t see it being used with these numbers. edit: ok, 660/12=55
These numbers all come from people who preferred 12 and 60 as their working base numbers, not 10. A lot of it becomes really elegant once you understand that.
Did they use duodecimal or sexagesimal numeral systems?
66 feet does not match that, also its 1 chain * 10 chains.
and 10 chains = 1 furlong = 1/8 mile
deleted by creator
Ya if you know that, you know what I’m talking about and just want to argue.
I do think a duodecimal system is elegant, I don’t see it being used with these numbers.
edit: ok, 660/12=55